GMing: What If We Say "Yes" To Everything?

[LepcisMagna]

But if we are all willing to acknowledge this very real possibility and just put it to the side for the sake of this discussion... perhaps Reynard's other hope for conversation about this thought experiment could come about?)

Would that not be ignoring the most likely outcome of the original suggestion? As you admit, players may unconsciously or gradually do this very thing, so it's hard to see how a broad application of this style wouldn't generally lead to it.

I have actually done what I am.talking about in this thread in the short term: started with a literal blank slate and just said "Yes" to everything. There were only 3 of us (2 players) and we played a total of 8 hours.

So, you have the answer to your thought experiment, then?

The less snarky (though still quite opinionated) part of my thoughts:
I think there are two variations of the original premise being argued about here. First is Reynard's, where soft facts are just always agreed to (the definition of "soft" facts being the point of argument for most of this thread†). Second is DEFCON 1's, where at any point there might be a chance of failure, there isn't (which I would argue means there are no rules to begin with). Regardless, in order to engage with the original proposal, I think both of these approaches have roughly the same outcome when taken to their extremes: a collaborative story with no cohesive (or self-consistent) world where the GM is nothing but another Player. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just one type of game, and for the right group of players it could likely be quite fun.

There's a discussion I recall about two styles of GM-ing: matter-of-fact gameplay, where the GM sets up the world and PCs and attempts to simulate the world realistically to one degree or another, and collaborative storytelling, which seems (essentially) to be what is being discussed here. I'm of the matter-of-fact camp, so I'll try to lay out my reasons (in terms of the hypothetical) as to why.

A good GM will say no (or ask to roll dice, as has been mentioned) in matter-of-fact gameplay (setting aside railroading, which is also a whole other kettle of fish) typically when the question is "unrealistic." For example: "Is there a musket under this tarp?" "No, because muskets haven't been invented yet." Could the GM instead have said yes to that? Easily (maybe aliens crashed on the planet and left it there, maybe it's a one-of-a-kind prototype, etc., etc.), but that changes the setting in a pretty fundamental way. For the collaborative storytelling GM, though, whatever is under the tarp is undetermined until someone looks under it (or asks if there's a tarp in the first place).

Neither of these approaches is "wrong" - but for some people (myself included) the latter feels "fake" somehow. This isn't to say the matter-of-fact GM is supposed to have absolutely everything set up beforehand (which would be impossible) or to have anticipated the party's every move (which would probably either turn into pure railroading/Schrödinger's Troll anyway) or to even have a predetermined "plot" beyond the goals of the NPCs. For the GM in this style of play, rollable tables, random encounters, and other such devices make it so not everything has to be predetermined and in return are left to accurately portray the world's reactions to the player's actions. For the player, they retain authorial control over their character within the bounds of the fiction and - I would argue - a good GM will probably let them have that uncle in town as long as it didn't lead to self-inconsistencies.

It's walking that line that I think may have inspired your initial proposal. Stray too far one way and you're railroading your players. Stray too far the other and there might as well not be a GM since generating and defeating the challenge is essentially up to the players anyway. I've found myself on both sides of that line (both as player and GM), and neither is good. The first will quickly disengage the players and the second will quickly disengage me as either a GM or a player. The line varies from group to group, as what is unrealistic to one might be perfectly acceptable to another: I've run a 5e group where jumping 11 feet into the air and kicking a ghost was just a cool idea, and I've run a 5e group where I spent an hour researching perched water tables so I could have an underwater dungeon on a hill (and yes, my players asked about it during the session).

That's my answer to your hypothetical - and why I avoid it generally - as best I can write it.

---

†So much of this discussion seems to be focused around what the GM says yes to and what things are adjudicated by the "rules," and I wanted to suggest a reason that might be. Any given ruleset might systematize a different set of things, given what is considered "realistic" by that group (see above). I play Pathfinder 2E for the most part, for example, and there are definitely rules for social interaction (which, come to think of it, 5e has as well). So, if a player said "I ask the king for his best steeds" I could point to the king's current disposition of Neutral and say that they can't Request anything from them at this point. It could also be that the king's current disposition is Helpful, but I set the DC to 50 since he really likes those horses (which a level 20 Mythic PC could still make).

Now, do I use any of those rules? No, not generally. But that's the point of contention I think is confused - since different things are adjudicated by "rules" rather than the DM in any given system (or the same system from table-to-table), no one will be able to agree on what, exactly, the DM is saying "yes" to by fiat rather than by rule.

 

[Reynard]

Thank you for the detailed reply. I agree with many, though not all,of your views on it. I do think you assume the GM is giving up too much of the role,though, just by saying Yes.

on this bit tho:

So, you have the answer to your thought experiment, then?

No. Like i said, this was brief, with just a couple players, and intentionally "wacky." I don't think it answers the hypothetical.

 

[pemerton]

You have a very specific set of expectations and assumptions, tied to your specific game preferences (Burning Wheel in particular) and you often seem to end up evangelizing those preferences as opposed to actually engaging the subject as presented. I don't mean this as a criticism, but as an explanation for why you appear to be flummoxed by pretty straight forward ideas. The concept, for example, that a system might deal with exploration and NPC interactions differently is not in any way novel. From what I have read of your actual play, it's more that that isn't how your preferred system does it, so you have seemingly forgotten that's how most older traditional games do it. I mean, is it odd to you that Traveller does ship combat differently than it does trading for goods?

I'm not confused that different games take different approaches. I just think that you question - what happens if the GM says "yes" wherever no other rules operate? - doesn't yield a very clear answer until we specify where the rules operate.

I mean, you seem to be making assumptions that are not even true of such ancient RPGs as Traveller or Rolemaster. You seem to be assuming a system very similar to AD&D 2nd ed or (one interpretation of) 5e, where there is a combat sub-system and then a vast realm of "GM decides".

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it answers the hypothetical.

To be honest, I don't really see why the session of Torchbearer that I played on the weekend isn't an answer to the hypothetical!

 

[LepcisMagna]

Thank you for the detailed reply. I agree with many, though not all,of your views on it. I do think you assume the GM is giving up too much of the role,though, just by saying Yes.

But in your original hypothetical, you even assert that the GM

gave up even a hint of control and just narrated the results of the PCs' choices and successful actions?

Even if your thoughts have shifted from your original post, I think that line is accurate (and is what many are arguing here): that if the GM has no option to say "no" or "yes, but" or "roll the dice," their only real power is enforcing the rules ... and what rules can be enforced if a player simply asks to ignore them just this once for the "rule of cool" (or says "we don't really need to track torches, do we?")?

No. Like i said, this was brief, with just a couple players, and intentionally "wacky." I don't think it answers the hypothetical.

Ah, the days when 8 hours was "brief." I miss those. But I would argue that it answers your hypothetical exactly:

What if for a new campaign or just a one shot, the GM said "Yes" to literally everything the players asked or wanted to do. Not "Yes, but," but just "yes, you can do/be/use that."

Emphasis mine, but if that's what you did (and the result was what a bunch of people here are saying it would be), I think that's a strong argument for it having exactly those results. I'm happy to admit that there are almost certainly groups out there who can make a story simply by self-enforcing their adherence to a setting, but that's going to be the exception and not the rule. I'd argue that you'll almost always either have a player who takes advantage of their ability to conjure things into existence (either intentionally or over time as everyone wants to match/one-up the cool thing the last person did) or the whole thing will collapse under the weight of a nonsensical narrative or things will break down because not everyone had the same idea about what the setting is in the first place. I'd argue that's why RPG systems exist in the first place: it's the constraints which make the art interesting or can provide a "fair" challenge to the players, so rather than always saying yes all the time, there are rules for how often and in what circumstances you can force a yes.

I'd also argue that the GM is a player in this world as well - we deserve to have fun, just as much as (but not more than) our Players do. Which brings us back to the extreme case: If the GM is not there to define the setting, the hazards, the verisimilitude of a place, what are they there for? If the GM can never say "no," what are they really doing there in the first place? What choices does the GM get to make? And that's not solely rhetorical - I'm trying to nail down what, specifically, your proposal says the GM gets to do during a session that couldn't be replaced by someone reading a copy of the given system's rulebook, maybe a setting book, and some white-out.

To bring it all back, I'd say that most (perhaps even 90% of the time), the GM can say yes. You might even say that the GM should say yes if it improves the fun being had or the story being told (or, my favorite, the "you can certainly try"). But - I would argue - sometimes increasing the long-term fun means saying no. Sometimes, keeping the acceptable balance means saying no. Sometimes, the "no" now can lead to a better "yes" in the future. It's an art-form, a high-context social structure game, and an arbitration of ambiguity that can't skew too far either in the party's favor (otherwise there will be no challenge and no reason for rules) or into an antagonistic/competitive relationship (the GM can always say "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "100 dragons attack you" but there's some obvious flaws in that even if they aren't written into rules).

 

[clearstream]

If the GM is not there to define the setting, the hazards, the verisimilitude of a place, what are they there for? If the GM can never say "no," what are they really doing there in the first place? What choices does the GM get to make? And that's not solely rhetorical - I'm trying to nail down what, specifically, your proposal says the GM gets to do during a session that couldn't be replaced by someone reading a copy of the given system's rulebook, maybe a setting book, and some white-out.

To my reading, @Reynard has said that GM is there to define setting etc. and while they've said they're not interested in divisions of authority, they've implied them. To me they've left it kind of unclear what "say yes" is intended to answer that isn't answered by defining participant roles in play, but perhaps that can be deduced too.

Suppose that GM's usual jobs were

say when rules are invoked​

​

say how rules are implemented​

​

authorship and continuity responsibility for facets of the fiction, such as setting, adversaries, and mysteries​

​

directorial responsibility over scene focus, framing and pace​

​

While players usually have

say who their characters are​

​

say what their characters do​

​

Then one use of a "say yes" principle of permissiveness could be that where players ask* about something in GM's purview, GM inclines the answer toward whatever it is they seem to expect. Or one might do that with regard to some of GM's jobs and not others (the authorship and continuity job, say, but not the rules management jobs).

*And players must "ask", because they cannot assert, given this division of jobs.

To bring it all back, I'd say that most (perhaps even 90% of the time), the GM can say yes. You might even say that the GM should say yes if it improves the fun being had or the story being told (or, my favorite, the "you can certainly try"). But - I would argue - sometimes increasing the long-term fun means saying no. Sometimes, keeping the acceptable balance means saying no. Sometimes, the "no" now can lead to a better "yes" in the future. It's an art-form, a high-context social structure game, and an arbitration of ambiguity that can't skew too far either in the party's favor (otherwise there will be no challenge and no reason for rules) or into an antagonistic/competitive relationship (the GM can always say "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "100 dragons attack you" but there's some obvious flaws in that even if they aren't written into rules).

The 2024 DMG has this to say about saying yes

One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater is called “Yes, and...” It’s based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actors give and builds on that. A similar principle applies as you run sessions for your players. As often as possible, weave what the players give you into your story.​

​

An equally important principle is “No, but...” Sometimes characters can’t do what their players want, but you can keep the game moving forward by offering an alternative.​

​

For example, imagine the characters are searching for a lich’s lair. A player asks you if there’s a mages’ guild operating in a nearby city, hoping to find records that mention the lich. This wasn’t a possibility you anticipated, and you don’t have anything prepared for it. One option is to say yes and use the tools at your disposal to create a suitable mages’ guild. By doing this, you reward the player for thinking creatively. Also, the guild can become a great source for adventure hooks.​

​

I think this is an example of what I am saying. Given jobs were, and were distributed, something as I have hypothesised, then ordinarily it would be up to GM to say that there were a mage's guild in a city. "Say yes" here means that player can imply a proposal in that regard, and GM will be inclined to exercise their authority in a way that accepts it.

To spell that out for the case illustrated, I believe when "A player asks you if there's a mages' guild" they are implying a proposition that there is a mages' guild. Seeing as GM here apparently owns setting, for a mage's guild to be added to the city setting GM must excercise their authority in a suitable way, or put simply: it's up to GM to "say yes" to that.​

Where the ideas in the OP hit a snag is that if GM absolutely cannot say "no" to this sort of proposition, then authority over those facets of the fiction effectively transfers to players. That in turn necessitates theories of player self-regulation... which would otherwise be unneeded or at least far less stressed.

 

[Reynard]

Where the ideas in the OP hit a snag is that if GM absolutely cannot say "no" to this sort of proposition, then authority over those facets of the fiction effectively transfers to players. That in turn necessitates theories of player self-regulation... which would otherwise be unneeded or at least far less stressed.

This is an accurate representation of my hypothetical. And what I was originally interested in is what that looks like over the long term.

 

[clearstream]

This is an accurate representation of my hypothetical. And what I was originally interested in is what that looks like over the long term.

Well, one thing one can predict it will look like is that it will on average work better for groups who've played together and shared norms over time, than a pick-up group. You've said that you're not interested in discussing division of authority or permission. I see that as hindering your goals. In order to judge what play will eventuate, you need to understand when and why P would ask rather than assert

Where P has authority, they need not ask, they (effectively) assert​

​

Thus, it is only meaningful for P to ask where they do not have authority​

​

If your intent is simply to restructure traditional divisions of authority through preventing GM from interfering with player assertions, then what will tell you most about the expected play will be to say what divisions of authority you expect to then (effectively) prevail?

For instance, IIRC you've said everyone has to respect milieu and you've implied that players cannot assert anything into setting. Unless you say that someone has authority over those facets of the fiction, there's no one to be asked who ought to say yes about them. Everyone asserts what they like and you hope they successfully self-regulate in a way that everyone else always agrees with. However

Why should GM be the person players have to ask to make assertions about milieu and setting anyway? Why can't players be guided by their own notions (surely just as feasible as that they will successfully self-regulate)​

​

If no one owns authorship and continuity of milieu, doesn't it become whatever the group develops at the table? (Unless you are assuming some objective reference they all obey?) And isn't that a rather lively possibility?​

​

In conclusion then, to answer your own questions you must spell out your assumptions or commitments regarding division of authority; because "ask" only makes sense across such divisions. (It's okay to say that everyone owns milieu, and "ask" then means checking in with everyone.) As I believe @aramis erak hinted at up thread, "Yes" in the absence of "no" has no meaning differentiated from a reappointment of authority.

 

[Reynard]

For instance, IIRC you've said everyone has to respect milieu and you've implied that players cannot assert anything into setting.

Where did I imply that? One of my first examples is the GM saying Yes to a player asserting something into the setting.

 

[clearstream]

Where did I imply that? One of my first examples is the GM saying Yes to a player asserting something into the setting.

Part of what leads to my possible misunderstanding is that if player is asserting, what is GM saying yes to?